Letters

Who beat communism?

SIR – While Ronald Reagan was indeed morally opposed to mutually assured destruction, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who developed a plan, in the form of arms reduction and minimum deterrence, to break out of the cycle (“The man who beat communism”, June 12th). America's arms build-up began under Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, although Mr Reagan accelerated the process.

It was only when Mr Gorbachev became secretary-general of the Soviet Communist Party in 1985 that tensions began to subside and progress was made. His proposals were based on a firm belief that fewer nuclear weapons afforded greater security, rather than the other way around. More than anything, it was this “new political thinking” that changed the face of international relations forever.

SIR – Mr Reagan was in the right place at the right time, as much constrained by the political situation as master of it. By 1978 the countries of the Soviet block had substantial debts and serious economic difficulties, which were then exacerbated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, the Soviets modernised their nuclear arsenal and threatened to move nuclear weapons into central Europe, forcing Mr Reagan to respond to their bluff. His master stroke was the “Star Wars” initiative. Although the required technology did not exist, the Soviets took fright. They devoted ever more to military spending, undermining their fragile economy and finally causing its collapse. The rest, as they say, is history.

Andrew Ryder

Portsmouth

SIR – You claim that Mr Reagan was “the man who beat communism”. Yet the People's Republic of China remains with us even though Beijing's power elite ignores ideology in its economic plans and simply retains the apparatus of the communist police state. At the same time, this disproves the liberal-left argument that communism was inherently unstable and bound to fall with or without Mr Reagan in the White House. He could only focus political and military pressure on the Soviet block. As you say, he was “blurry about China”.

Anthony Martin

London

SIR – We may well agree that Mr Reagan beat communism. But he was playing a game of chicken with our lives. Mr Gorbachev wisely pulled to the side of the road. It is to him we owe our gratitude, not the reckless driver.

Lawrence Sinclair

New York

SIR – You say that conventional wisdom in 1980 held that Mr Reagan lacked the intellectual prowess for the job of president. However, it is apparent that Mr Reagan possessed intellectual powers and new ideas for areas of lifelong interest to him. This happened to coincide with topics that were of vital importance to the world then: democracy, free markets, and growth-oriented fiscal and economic policies for America and other capitalist societies. His governance had notable successes and failures, but his approach of using simple paradigms and ideas to solve complex social and economic problems is a valid form of applied intellectualism.

Bryan Calkins

San Francisco

SIR – Mr Reagan's legacy includes mass graves in Central America that are still being excavated, graves filled with victims of crimes for which no one has ever been convicted and an entire region is left mired in desperate poverty and injustice.

Joan Ponsford

El Paso, Texas

SIR – The most credit for developing a strategy to defeat communism should be given to Harry Truman. He developed the doctrine followed by every administration up to that of Mr Reagan. He stopped the spread of communism through the Marshall Plan, coming to the aid of Greece, protecting our position in Berlin with the airlift and coming to the aid of South Korea when the North invaded. Mr Reagan's decisions pale in comparison.

Saul Nova

Denver

SIR – You dishonour the hundreds of thousands of men and women from many countries, who over decades gave of their intellects, energies and lives to bring down the “evil empire” to the point where a tweak from Mr Reagan could bring it down like a rotten fruit.

Herman Archer

Heiligenstadt, Germany

The better of two evils

SIR – You raise an interesting question by asking “Which is worse, state ownership or corrupt privatisation?” (“Steel crazy”, May 29th). I suspect that the citizens of Ukraine (and other post-communist countries) are, on balance, more likely to benefit from a corrupt system where personal gain encourages state divestment rather than a less corrupt one where management remains fossilised in state ownership.

David Scott

Loughborough, Leicestershire

Crime and punishment

SIR – You say that fraudsters get sentences mainly reserved for “murderers, rapists and armed robbers” but do not mention the punishment of drug conspirators and petty dealers (“Bosses behind bars”, June 12th). Possessing 5-10 grams of crack often earns a sentence of ten years to life. I am currently sitting in a federal correctional facility for a second marijuana offence. People like me face the same sentence. There is a lack of nuance, deliberation, and careful consideration by legislators when passing sentencing guidelines. Excessive sentences for fraud should be checked, but only if the whole system is revamped. Don't forget the little guys who respect the laws of supply and demand and the free market that you proselytise.

James Della Bella

3144198

Monmouth County Correctional Institution

Freehold, New Jersey

Wild about Harry

SIR – You are right that there is nothing new bursting on to cinema screens today (“Harry Potter and the familiar formulae”, May 29th). But “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” is not part of the phenomenon. First, seven Harry Potter books are planned, so you could not expect that only one of them would be made into a movie. Second, the director has changed (for the better) and made a great film. Third, the film has nothing to do with its predecessors, apart from the actors and music. The clothes, light, colours and castle have all changed. This film is genuinely new and, despite the caption, your picture of Harry, Ron and Hermione in front of Hogwarts has not been seen before.

Fanny Durand

Nantes, France

The wrong side of the road

SIR – You show George Bush riding in a sidecar on the left-hand side of the governor of California (Lexington, June 12th). Is it the much-vaunted “special relationship” that has enabled Tony Blair to persuade Mr Bush that America should adopt the British rule of the road?